• Nov 24th 2006 at 11:25AM
  • 59
So we read over this report by the Civil Society Institute that polled U.S. citizens on their support of a federally-mandated increase in fuel efficiency, so that vehicles in the U.S. would achieve over 40 MPG. A mind-boggling 78-percent answered "yes" when asked. However, the questions posed struck us as a little odd, so we though we'd enlist the help of our sage-like readership after you've come out of your tryptophanatic comas to give us your opinion.
The report also claimed that 45-percent of Americans would be more inclined to purchase either a "hybrid or other fuel-efficient vehicle" and that 76-percent believe that the Big-Two-Point-Five are to blame for their current financial and marketplace predicaments.

We're not saying that the information presented is flawed, but we were mighty surprised by the results. So we'll pose the question to you. The poll is below, vote away.

Polling is closed and the results as of 7:30 PM EST are below.

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 8 Years Ago
      I guess, should we allow automakers to build products that run off of a limited resource and whatever they want? I realize with the CAFE standards Toyota has the prius and Camry hybrid which enables them to "not work that hard" on the Sequoia (just hypothetical) getting good MPG.

      The other day on here they showed a Ford commercial from 1961 with the Falcon, claiming it got 30mpg.

      Fast forward to 2006! I have a 2004 Mazda 3 "s" sedan that is not even rated by the epa to get 30mpg on the HIGHWAY! (Only 29) And it only get 24 city, which the way I drive the car averages 21mpg. Can't TAHOES get that on average?

      It would be nice to see the standards increase, WHILE not compromising the size of cars/trucks/suv's people like to drive.

      Now, if it forces all of us into hatchbacks THAT would be a different story. Who am I to stop someone to drive a 3 row SUV on the way into work. I totally disagree and think that person is a total waste to earth, and I would not have a problem driving a (screech) hatchback, but many do.

      When it comes down to it, it's America and we get what we want 100% of the time, if this would ever become law and it WOULD affect what we wanted there would be hell to pay for the politicians who voted it in, at least that is what I think.

      -I just really don't understand a puney sized car like my Mazda 3 is only able to average 21mpg. And if I "baby" it, it gets about 24mpg.
      • 8 Years Ago
      Once again, the loony environmentalists only consider the first layer of the issue. If you go to the link below and look at the fuel economy data for various vehicles, you will see that 40 mpg would eliminate most vehicles from the marketplace. A lot of manufacturers and their suppliers would go out of business if a 40 mpg law was passed. That means a lot of people will lose their jobs. Patents on hybrid, electric, fuel cell, and other technologies would prevent a lot of these companies from switching over to the newer technologies. The loss of income for so many people would have a trickle down effect on other businesses like real estate, restaurants, travel, etc. The economy is a complex system that should not be toyed with by short-sighted feel good measures like fuel economy requirements. Consequences need to be considered. Anything else would be irresponsible.


      I've also heard a few conspiracy theory nut cases claim (on other sites) that the oil companies have bought out many of the patents that threaten their business. Again, they are only looking at the first layer of the issue. Patents expire after 20 years which would not be that far away if they bought the patents years ago. And patents are very easy to search for at the link below. I have yet to see any patents owned by oil companies that could be used to put them out of business.

      • 8 Years Ago
      I just looked at the Autoblog poll results and with 1471 votes recorded 57% favored a 40MPG mandate. Yes I know it is unscientific.

      But what is interesting is that the readership of this blog is likely to be car enthusiasts and more aware of the trade offs of a 40MPG mandate, yet they still are favoring the mandate.

      Like I said interesting.
      • 8 Years Ago
      "67. Ryan: so you've been in Amsterdam? Congratulations: you must be an expert on Diesel engines...
      I actually live in Europe."

      -No no expert, but you can see it flying around in the air and it was hard to run more than a mile without coughing up some lung butter. I'm a dual citizen of the State and Ireland, and it's absolutely no better in Dublin either.

      -Also is a PZEV or ULEV unleaded engine dirtier than modern diesel?

      "Do you really think the smell of Amesterdam comes specifically from diesel engines? :p Please..."

      -Well I will just say, I actually like the other smell :-)
      • 8 Years Ago
      its funny, gm has more vehicles that achieve at least 30 mpg, yet they're seen as the "devil". not to mention, toyota has the worst mpg suv (the sequoia) and gm has the best. all gm's full-size vehicles acheive at least 20 mpg (my silverado does it), yet theyre the bad guy. not to mention the hybrid's are being released next year, as are small diesels in the next feew years, wheres toyota?

      a mandated 40 mpg is stupid. it wont solve anything. people are going to drive what they want and what they need, imposing a law like that wont solve anything.
      • 8 Years Ago
      "The best thing that couls happen is that the oil fiels go dry and we will not be talking about this anymore."

      -Really, the best thing that would happen is if the world economy came to a grinding halt?
      • 8 Years Ago
      Also Tom, the question was: "Would you support a federally-mandated increase in fuel economy to 40 MPG for American vehicles?"

      -It's to raise the vehicles to this standard, it does not say "should be ban Tahoes".

      "The economy is a complex system that should not be toyed with by short-sighted feel good measures like fuel economy requirements."

      -Tom I agree with you 100% but I also feel GM and Ford have the smarts to be able to have a Tahoe get 40mpg. If not do you think they are smart enough to figure it out? I would like to think so.
      • 8 Years Ago
      "Apparently the clear majority of Autoblog readers agree with the "loony" people that want to save the earth. (take a look at the poll) ;-)" -Ryan

      What the majority believes often has little to do with the facts. There was a time when the majority thought the Earth was flat. Short-sighted feel good "solutions" will not save the Earth.

      "Ethenol comes from many different things, Brazil's ethonal comes from sugar cane, we have an enitre state devoted to that." -Ryan

      If sugar cane is used, then the price of sugar cane will increase. That also has consequences.
      • 8 Years Ago
      "12. What would really be illuminating would be the question: Does your current car get better than 30mpg?"


      -PLEASE!!! Add this poll, I'm curious as well!
      • 8 Years Ago
      The tax credit for buying a hybrid was a great political way to make it look as though congress was 'environmentally friendly' without actually doing anything. Toyota developed hybrids early on, making the safe bet that the Japanese government would support the Kyoto Treaty and thus they would have a leg up on the competition. They did this as a smart business move, not because they care about the environment. If they gave a rats behind about (visual) pollution, there would be no Xa or Xb ;-). You'll also recall Bush allocated lots of taxpayer dollars for the development of ethanol, fuel cell and hydrogen powered vehicles as well.

      Hybrids were a great story for the media to run with, but as Brock Yates and money others have shown, their mileage in the real world is not much better than their gasoline counterparts which overall have a lower detrimental impact on the environment.
      • 8 Years Ago
      The Feds tried this over 20 years ago with CAFE rules, 55 MPH speed limits - all Big Brother attempts to meet a standard that should be based on market place conditions. It didn't work then, why should it work now. The only way that we will ever see this fule mileage point is when gas hits $4.00 per gallon here. That's why cars in Europe are typically high MPG vehilces.

      Don'e get me wrong. I AM in favor of fuel effeciency, but not at the price if the Federal Government is running my life. I drive a VW TDI that gets me almost 50 MPG and a Harley Electra Glide that I try to use as often as possible that gets 45 MPG. In the end... let me make that choice.
      • 8 Years Ago
      We need to stop the hypocricy, it is retartded to mandate 40 mpg for cars but allow pickups and SUVs to continue guzzling @ 14 mpg. Currently SUVs and pickups that get terrible fuel economy (14 city and 18 highway for example) get a free pass without any gas guzzler tax, a car with the same fuel economy gets hit with a large 2-3,000 gas guzzler tax. I am afraid if anything remotely similar to this proposal happens cars would get giant gas guzzler fines while those gas hogs will get free passes. If we want to cut down on consumption we have to make sure that more than 1/2 of all new vehicles sold get more that 15 mpg [SUVs and pickups] before we raise fuel economy standards for cars.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X